keithstric.com::Political Rant

Lotus Notes perception in the workplace...HomeHandy freebie...

Today at lunch I was watching (not listening, it was muted) the Obama rally in North Carolina and had a few observations. Now the quotes here aren't actually quotes, they're paraphrases from what I read on the television as that was a little over an hour ago, so please forgive my inaccuracy.

"Obama: I feel the American people have been vindicated in my eyes" - Now I ask, why do the American people need to be vindicated? Are we, the people of the United States, that bad? If so, why would you want to lead us? Also, if you don't like us, why would we want you to lead us?

"Obama: Everyone should have a shot at success and that those who try should be successful" - How can this be? In the Declaration of Independence it promises the "Pursuit of Happiness", it doesn't guarantee happiness. It seems Barak Obama is promising success as long as you try. There have been so many good ideas that people tried to sell, implement or whatever but they failed. They failed because the idea or product wasn't really such a good idea, or they couldn't sell it or they didn't work hard enough to ensure it's success or one of a million other reasons of why something fails in the market place. So, is he saying that as long as you try and fail that the government will come in and ensure your success? Why would I want big government to come in and help me do anything. It will more than likely become my biggest obstacle to success. Government is already my biggest obstacle to building wealth, I don't need or want any more government help.

"Obama: I will stop the Bush tax cuts to prevent Billionaires and big corporations from making CEOs rich" - Stopping the Bush Tax cuts will hit everyone, it will be a raise in taxes to the working lower and middle class, because stopping a tax cut is the same as raising taxes. So stop saying no new taxes for the middle class. I guess that stopping the Bush tax cuts doesn't really qualify as a "New" tax, it'll just be reinstating an old tax.

Now, these are but a few of the statements that upset me. But here is another observation. Obama is running on "Change", now, in 2006 the American people voted in a democratic congress for the purpose of "Change". In those 2 years this congress has accomplished nothing with the exception of allowing gas prices to skyrocket, they have destroyed our economy, demolished the housing industry and undermined our military. There is talk that in preparation of Obama being elected there will be new taxes, freedoms taken away and a solid march toward redistribution of wealth (read Socialism). Now imagine that Obama is President with a democrat majority in the House and Senate, where would it stop? Who would be able to stop the removal of our freedoms and liberty? It's already been shown that liberal judges have no problem giving government permission to come take our land if government thinks it can make more money in taxes by putting it to a different use other than supporting you, what would stop them taking more freedoms and protection from government away?

I know I'm all over the board here, but I feel that Americans are turning into a bunch of whining wusses who expect or think they deserve handouts from whomever will give them out. Big government will always promise handouts, especially if making that promise will get them elected, but when it comes time to hand it over it'll be too little, too late and be to your detriment, not the governments'. Take for example Social Security, this has been one of the biggest failures of government I can think of. Now we want government to take over our health care? We've built the best health care system in the world, why would we want government to take it over? This would be idiotic. So, do you think that government would pay a doctor his/her current salary? If not, what is the motivation to become a doctor? This in turn would motivate the people who aren't smart enough to be a doctor to pursue being a doctor and the smarter people to pursue something else. Do we really want to dumb down our doctors? Because that would be the result of socialist health care, not to mention a big degradation in the quality of care you'll receive in a hospital, if you can get in a hospital.

Last one, I kind-of covered this above but it's worth saying again. Obama is saying that there will be no new taxes to the lower and middle class. Well, stopping the Bush tax cuts would be considered a raise in taxes but he's saying there will only be new taxes for people who make over $250,000 per year. Now raising taxes on the rich does trickle down. I've never worked for a poor person, and that's because they couldn't afford to pay me a salary. So, if taxes are raised on the rich, which will probably total what I make as a salary, at least, then for the person I work for to continue to make the same profit they have been making they'll have to get rid of some people. What good is paying less taxes if I don't have a job? It's a proven fact that cutting taxes across the board brings more money into government and that raising taxes causes less money to come into government. Why must people still insist on the opposite being true?

I've ranted long enough and if you're still reading this, I'm impressed. I know I haven't been blogging of late but it's been very hectic here. I've taken over my R/C Club's website, still been supporting Mike's RC Hobbies, working and spending time with the family and trying to have some fun in between. But since winter time is almost upon us hopefully I'll be able to start posting a little more.

Comments Disabled

Comments (8):

Alan Bell

8	Re: Political Rant On: October 29, 2008 04:29 PM
I am not sure that too many Europeans would agree that you have got the best health care system in the world. A national health service can work (or indeed can be messed up). A health care system that relies on the patient presenting a credit card first is not an attractive alternative to me!

Rob McDonagh

Re: Political Rant
On: October 29, 2008 05:54 PM

Speaking as the husband of a doctor, I guarantee our health care system is nowhere near the best in the world. Top 20, maybe. Our RESEARCH facilities are top notch. Our patient care isn't impressive at all.

As far as redistribution of wealth, if that's your definition of socialism (it's not mine - socialism is state ownership of companies or industries - oddly, just what we're doing now on Wall Street) we've been a socialist country since 1913 because the very first income tax ever created was "progressive." The rich paid more, redistributing wealth to the middle and lower classes. There's no rule you can't despise progressive taxation, but pretending it's new is just bizarre.

I won't argue with the rest, though I disagree with just about everything you've said. Since I'm a flaming liberal, that's no surprise. Emoticon

Richard Schwartz

Re: Political Rant
On: October 29, 2008 09:37 PM

Senator Obama will let the Bush tax cuts for the top two income brackets expire. He will keep them in place for everyone else, and he will bring on new tax cuts which will mean that nobody in the bottom 95% of income in this country will have their taxes raised. He has been 100% consistent about that for more than a year, repeating it time after time after time. If you do not understand that he has been saying that if your family earnings are below $250,000 your taxes will not go up, you have simply not been been listening. And BTW, he is saying exactly the same thing with respect to small businesses, organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or subchapter S corporations: because their federal business taxes are one-and-the-same as their owners' federal income taxes, they will not go up unless their owner's family incomes exceed $250,000. If you still think its not true because you listen to misquotes, partial quotes, out of context information and just plain made up information, or if you just plain don't believe him... then all I can tell you is that you are wrong.

The truth is that Obama's so-called "socialism", amounts to taxing an additional $300 for someone who earns $260,000. Today if you earn $260,000 you pay $3300 more than if you earn $250,000. Under Obama's plan, you pay $3600 instead of $3300. It's about one Big Mac meal a week in extra taxes for you under Obama for each extra $10,000 you make after your first quarter million dollars. That's until you get to $350,000, at which point the extra taxes on each $10,000 that you make will be a $460, so that's shake and apple pie on top of that Big Mac meal every week. You have to make close to $2million before your extra taxes actually get to 3% more of your income. That's true of you as an individual worker, and for a small business owner you have to make almost $2million in profts -- after salaries and all other expenses before your increased tax burden gets to 3%. That's the extent of Obama's alleged "socialism".

And BTW: if you invest $100,000 in starting a small business, and you sell it for $1,000,000, under Obama's tax plan you won't pay any capital gains tax on the $900,000 profit you made. You will under Senator McCain. Does that make him a socialist?

Regarding the Democratic congress's failure to bring on change, that's true... but if you blame that on the Democrats, you are badly in need of a lesson in Civics. It takes more than a majority in the Senate for congress to actually accomplish anything when the other party controls the Executive branch. It takes 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor and withstand a veto threat in the Senate if the President's party opposes it. The Democrats have 51 votes, at best -- and that's only if Lieberman stands with them. And this President has used every tool at his disposal to oppose every initiative that congressional Democrats have favored. Now, it is absolutely the President's right to oppose congress any time he wants to, and I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it, but it is patently wrong to blame the Democrats for the fact that nothing has changed in the past two years. They simply don't have the votes to do it.

Regarding liberal judges, you are criticizing them for doing exactly what conservatives always criticize them for not doing! The liberal wing of the court strictly interpreted the constitution, which explicitly says that that states have the power to take property for public use so long as they follow due process and provide just compensation. And since neither the constitution nor any federal law defines "public use", the liberals on the court took a position of judicial restraint by ruling that this is a matter for the states to decide, or for congress to pass new laws to deal with. (And those laws are needed. No question.) But still, conservatives criticize them, despite the fact that the only way they can do so is by doing everything that they hate about liberal judges: make up rights that aren't in the constitution and take away powers that belong to the states -- in this case powers that the constitution explicitly gives to the states.

Now, regarding your point about "trickle-down", the facts show that it has utterly failed. Policies based on trickle-down theory were instituted in the Reagan years with tax cuts for the wealthy, which were slightly rolled back during the Clinton years, and then taxes for the wealthy were cut even lower during the Bush years than in the Reagan years. What has happened? The rich have gotten richer, and the fruits of their gains have not trickled down. Median household income adjusted for inflation has gone down since Reagan instituted supply-side policies in the 80s, despite massive improvements in business productivity and increased hours worked per household. The period of the highest investment growth was during the Clinton administration, during the years in which supply-side policies were slightly rolled back. And median household inflation-adjusted income increased by 2% annually during the Clinton years, versus 1.4% in the Reagan years and an anemic 0.3% during George W. Bush's administration.

There's a very, very simple explanation for why trickle-down doesn't work: the rich will invest their gains where they get the greatest returns, and they don't get the best returns by investing in companies that actually let the money trickle down to American workers! They get the greatest returns on their money by investing it either overseas in countries with low labor costs, or in domestic companies that bust unions, don't invest in training workers, lay off workers whenever there is a slow-down, and generally respond favorably to Wall Street's demands for short-term results by strictly controlling their labor costs. Under trickle-down supply-side economic policy, we have become a debtor nation that pursues only short-term gains, does not invest for the long-term. This is extraordinarily dangerous for our country. Change is desperately needed. Obama will bring change, moving us away from this foolish economic philosophy Senator McCain, who until a few years ago opposed the Bush tax cuts, will keep us on the course that has been proven

Richard Schwartz

Re: Political Rant
On: October 29, 2008 09:46 PM

Note: an editing mistake in the above comment. The sentence "Median income adjusted for inflation has gone down since the Reagan years..." is incorrect. I realized this and corrected it with the last sentence of the paragraph, but forgot to go back and change the initial sentence. I had intended to change it to state that despite massive business productivity improvements and increased hours worked per household, the largest measurable effects in our economy under supply-side policies has been increased income inequality, increased personal debt, and decreased savings, not increased prosperity.

Richard Schwartz

Re: Political Rant
On: October 29, 2008 10:13 PM

Final comment: I just re-read your post and noticed that you based your statements here not on what he actually said, but on what was transcribed in instant captions on the screen. That's an extraordinarily poor way to assess a candidate's positions on anything. I've been to two Obama rallies in person and I know that there have been McCain supporters there. You should go to one if you have the chance and actually listen to him. Also, I have studied his positions in-depth, and I know that your paraphrases of captions that are already paraphrases of what he said are simply not accurate reflections of what he believes or what his positions are. I haven't had an opportunity to get to a McCain rally, but I've made an effort on multiple occasions to read actual transcripts of full speeches, rather than limiting myself to what comes through on television. This election is too important to make decisions based on second-hand information or even on network-edited sound bite snippets of what the candidates have said. (I include the information I've presented in my previous responses in that 'second-hand' category, BTW.) The race been going on a long time, and both candidates have made numerous speeches -- including a few flubs by each of them, of course, but it is very easy to get to their true positions even when they mis-speak. They each have extensive web sites with in-depth descriptions of their formal positions on a very wide variety of issues. There's really no excuse for relying on captions, sound-bites or what someone else says, rather than your own personal observation and research. Whichever way you end up voting, I truly hope your opinion is based on primary source facts, not on paraphrases of captions that flit by in a few seconds on a television screen.

Axel

Re: Political Rant
On: October 30, 2008 11:17 AM

I think that Ronald Reagan was at that time a good president.
But now I hope that Obama wins this election for a lot of reasons and if it were only to put an end to that shallow, buzzword-florid (Socialism) discourse. I do not mean you personally. But could fellow conservative Americans please turn down a bit this foxnoise?
If you want to see what real socialists are about, learn spanish and download alopresidente or learn german and read most popular supraregional newspaper in eastern Germany. Socialism is really a bit different from reverting tax decreases for people probably richer than you and me together.

zorry for ranting

Felice

Re: Political Rant
On: October 30, 2008 01:10 PM

Let's face it: the greedy, ignorant, selfish, self-perceived and sometimes self-rightous and pious, afro-phobics here and elsewhere are afraid, very afraid, that their delusionally-induced perception that they, and those like them on the far right, are in control of power as part of the kingdom of Bush, and that is slipping away. They will provide extensive discourse on why they do not agree with Senator Obama like you have here, just to mask the inbred, sometimes bible-thumping fear of an African-American man or to hide their simple, shameful and unchristian racism. As offensive and reprehensible as it is, to hear a NWP neighbor say, when he did not know I was listening, that he would not vote for a "f***** n*****" was at least forthright in that context, versus all the excuses folks around here have been offering. The bloggers here and elsewhere should just say what they are really thinking so they can be exposed for what they are: fear-driven racists hiding behind stupid tag lines, right wing religious beliefs and a complete lack of understanding of terms like "socialist", "communist" etc.

Keith Strickland

Re: Political Rant
On: October 30, 2008 02:48 PM

@7 So, you think I'm racist? Let me tell you something. Some of my best friends are African American. I've trusted my life to African Americans and they've trusted me with theirs. And yes, I have invited them to dinner and shared good times with them without ever thinking about the color of their skin and will continue to do so. So don't preach to me about being racist.

Only people who are shallow and bigoted look at skin color and assume that someone they've never met are racist based solely on their political beliefs. So I assume you think if Obama looses that the entire country is racist? If the two candidates were the opposite I would be saying the same thing.

The notes blogging community is an upstanding group of people of all colors, races, nationalities, political beliefs and religions. I don't think you'll find a better group of people anywhere and I would never think any one of them are racist, let alone insult their intelligence by calling them a racist. Emoticon

If you want to spout racial comments and hatred, do it elsewhere as you're most certainly not welcome to do it here. Emoticon

geesh

Rich,
I've heard/read most of what you said in your comments, it's just that I don't believe him. Heck I don't believe most of what McCain says either. I think they're both in this for political expediency. But there is a good chance that if Obama wins the race that there is most certainly the chance that the majority in the house and senate will be democrat. History shows that situation isn't very good. I shouldn't say it's just if Democrats have the majority it's if any one party has the majority in the house and senate and also the executive branch, we need diversity there.

I've been following the speeches and what not fairly close I've just held my tongue as much as I could Emoticon

, I've tried to keep my politics out of the blogosphere due to comments like #7. But there's been a few things lately that really just pushed my buttons and I had to vent, preferably to someone who doesn't share my views Emoticon

I don't care for either candidate and I believe McCain is the lesser of two evils. I'm a conservative and I don't want the government helping me do or get anything. I believe success should be rewarded not punished, nor can it be guaranteed.

I've posted several times on the lack of "Sacred Honor" within the government today, on both sides. But I feel that the 2 candidates are just saying what people want to hear so they'll be elected. I honestly don't believe much of anything either one says. But the things that are said reveals their underlying beliefs.

I was raised a democrat, but of late with the democratic party moving so far to the left and being driven by entities such as moveon.org, I feel that they abandoned the people like myself and I can not support those that fall under that banner.

As for the supreme court ruling. This change gives local governments permission to purchase land that is privately owned, or if the owner will not sell it, they can take it in order to use it for private economic development if they think it would be better for the public. I understand purchasing or taking someone's land for a road, bridge, sewer, etc. But to do this to put a hotel or a shopping mall or resort, marina or whatever, I most certainly don't agree with that.

Everyone else,
I am going to close comments on this post from here on out due to the comments of #7. I just don't want to hear that sort of thing and I won't be a place where that sort of thing is accepted. I will not delete the comment but I just don't want others to follow suit. I apologize to those of you who posted legitimately, intelligently and without insult.

Email: Keith Strickland
Facebook: Keith Strickland
Bleed Yellow: Keith Strickland
LDD: Keith Strickland
MSN:
AIM:
Google Talk:
Yahoo!:

Disclaimer

The opinions and ideas posted on keithstric.com are not necessarily the opinions and ideas of my employer. The solutions, techniques and code provided here are not guaranteed or warranted in any way and are free for you to use at your own risk.